Let's impeach the president.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Basically Gonzales wrote a very controversial memo that some believe had to do with the torture techniques used at AG. This is why his confirmation drew so much critism. That along with the latest on the firings of these U.S. Attorneys is just more egg on the face of this Administration.

Here are a couple of links.

Does the Right Remember Abu Ghraib? (washingtonpost.com)

NPR : Ghosts of Abu Ghraib May Haunt Gonzales Hearing

You mean the US Attorneys that the President can fire anytime that he wants to and other presidents have done the same thing. The problem is that Bush should have just come out and said I decided to fire them so that what I did. End of story. The Washington post has done so many stories on Abu Ghraib you would have thought that we were breaking their arms, cutting off fingers, shocking them and all of that bad stuff. Ok, we had a few people do some dumb stuff but that should be the end of the story. What torture techniques that we are using that are so bad Depriving them of sleep, dripping water in their face?

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You mean the US Attorneys that the President can fire anytime that he wants to and other presidents have done the same thing.

Yeah, you are right to a point. Everyother Presidents did fire US Attorneys, the difference here is that the other Presidents fired the US Attorneys shortly after they took office, not half to 3 quarters way through there administration. These US Attorneys were ok for the first 6 or 7 years but now all of a sudden for the last year or so they are fired? Tell me another President, that wasnt newly elected, that fired as many US Attorneys as Bush did. I have no problem with the firings if the Attorneys deserved to be fired, but the ones that got fired all are singing the same tune. They did not adhear to their politcal parties demands. Basicly they decided to up hold the CONSTIUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, rather than surrender to the demands of the Republican party.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

Yeah, you are right to a point. Everyother Presidents did fire US Attorneys, the difference here is that the other Presidents fired the US Attorneys shortly after they took office, not half to 3 quarters way through there administration. These US Attorneys were ok for the first 6 or 7 years but now all of a sudden for the last year or so they are fired? Tell me another President, that wasnt newly elected, that fired as many US Attorneys as Bush did. I have no problem with the firings if the Attorneys deserved to be fired, but the ones that got fired all are singing the same tune. They did not adhear to their politcal parties demands. Basicly they decided to up hold the CONSTIUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, rather than surrender to the demands of the Republican party.

This hardly amounts to an eye-popping distinction. It's okay to fire all of them right away but you can't fire a few after 2 or 5 years? This is pure politics. The Democrats think that if they hold enough hearings someone will slip up. I'm amazed that they haven't found a crime to prosecute yet. I'm not sure if the obdurate simpleton, Janet Reno, could have withstood such scrutiny.

The Democrats seem to be operating under the misapprehension that somehow their 2006 election victory nullified the 2004 presidential election. Wishful thinking. The President can do what the hell he wants with hiring and firing.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

This hardly amounts to an eye-popping distinction. It's okay to fire all of them right away but you can't fire a few after 2 or 5 years? This is pure politics. The Democrats think that if they hold enough hearings someone will slip up. I'm amazed that they haven't found a crime to prosecute yet. I'm not sure if the obdurate simpleton, Janet Reno, could have withstood such scrutiny.

The Democrats seem to be operating under the misapprehension that somehow their 2006 election victory nullified the 2004 presidential election. Wishful thinking. The President can do what the hell he wants with hiring and firing.

But the point is that it was never done by any other president after 2 to 5 years. Not the democrats hoping for someone to slip up. Also, its not just the democrats there are members of the GOP that feel the same way...

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

But the point is that it was never done by any other president after 2 to 5 years. Not the democrats hoping for someone to slip up. Also, its not just the democrats there are members of the GOP that feel the same way...

They certainly are hoping for someone to slip up. No one can deny that. That's the nature of those hearings. Otherwise they could save money and do it by e-mail.

I think the President should have the right to hire and fire his people for whatever reason he wants. If the shoe were on the other foot, the donkeys would say the same. The congress cannot be allowed to meddle in the decisions of the executive in this way. They have broad powers but those powers do not extend to imposing their own political judgements on a President of the party opposite. Also, the Democrats would be wise to reign in Schumer a bit. He is an hopelessly self-righteous camera-hog and sooner or later everything that goes around comes around. The Democrats will likely gain the White House next year and a lot of this behaviour will be re-visited upon them in a most displeasing way. Patience is a nearly forgotten virtue in politics.

Finally, I would suggest that these wobbly Republicans are acting out of fear and not high-minded concern for the future of the Republic. Arlen Specter, for example, has been running scared ever since the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings. He is only a Republican about half the time.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

This hardly amounts to an eye-popping distinction. It's okay to fire all of them right away but you can't fire a few after 2 or 5 years? This is pure politics. The Democrats think that if they hold enough hearings someone will slip up. I'm amazed that they haven't found a crime to prosecute yet. I'm not sure if the obdurate simpleton, Janet Reno, could have withstood such scrutiny.

The Democrats seem to be operating under the misapprehension that somehow their 2006 election victory nullified the 2004 presidential election. Wishful thinking. The President can do what the hell he wants with hiring and firing.

This is not pure politics. This is a blatant disregard for an institution that should be treated with the highest honor and respect. These people are the curators of law in the nation, they are not to be toyed with and labeled incompetent, fired, and replaced with unqualified individuals. Lets not make this to us vs. them. This is is a serious matter that should concern us all. Believe me, if this was Clinton administration doing the firing I would be saying the same thing.

I mean really, do you want the president firing a whole bunch of AGs every 3 months, 6 months, year, etc? Yes, he has the power to do so but there are reasons why one shouldn't do that and certainly one shouldn't fire AGs because they don't meet Monica Goodling's litmus test or a certain Senator doesn't like how they are handling a case.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You mean the US Attorneys that the President can fire anytime that he wants to and other presidents have done the same thing. The problem is that Bush should have just come out and said I decided to fire them so that what I did. End of story. The Washington post has done so many stories on Abu Ghraib you would have thought that we were breaking their arms, cutting off fingers, shocking them and all of that bad stuff. Ok, we had a few people do some dumb stuff but that should be the end of the story. What torture techniques that we are using that are so bad Depriving them of sleep, dripping water in their face?

The torture technique we use was first developed by Brazile and then adopted for use by the U.S. at Gitmor and Abu Graib. It is regarded as the most viscious permanently impairing system of torture, both physically and psychologically, in the world. It was demonstrated for Rumsfeld at Gitmo, where Rumsfeld participated in the torture of a prisoner. The Red Cross once reported that two eighty year old men who were both mentally ill at Gitmo we kept in a small cell 24 hours at day lying in their own excretement.

To date, it has produced much destruction and death, but almost no useful information or convictions.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

The torture technique we use was first developed by Brazile and then adopted for use by the U.S. at Gitmor and Abu Graib. It is regarded as the most viscious permanently impairing system of torture, both physically and psychologically, in the world. It was demonstrated for Rumsfeld at Gitmo, where Rumsfeld participated in the torture of a prisoner. The Red Cross once reported that two eighty year old men who were both mentally ill at Gitmo we kept in a small cell 24 hours at day lying in their own excretement.

First, to say that the "torture" techniques employed at Gitmo are the "most vicious permanently impairing system ... in the world" is a major overstatement. Hyperbole works great with some people, but not with me.

Second, to say that Rumself personally participated in the torture on a prisoner is also a little strange. Please see my first point. Speaking the truth and making sound arguments goes a lot further than making things up or exaggerating.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

First, to say that the "torture" techniques employed at Gitmo are the "most vicious permanently impairing system ... in the world" is a major overstatement. Hyperbole works great with some people, but not with me.

Second, to say that Rumself personally participated in the torture on a prisoner is also a little strange. Please see my first point. Speaking the truth and making sound arguments goes a lot further than making things up or exaggerating.

Neither statement is hyperbole. Do the research. Rumsfeild directly participated in the torture of a prisoner at Gitmo.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Neither statement is hyperbole. Do the research. Rumsfeild directly participated in the torture of a prisoner at Gitmo.

He was the guy in charge of the entire defense department. Whether he personally tortured a prisoner or not is inconsequential. The only thing that you and I should be concerned about is the fact that he approved of torture.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

First, to say that the "torture" techniques employed at Gitmo are the "most vicious permanently impairing system ... in the world" is a major overstatement. Hyperbole works great with some people, but not with me.

Second, to say that Rumself personally participated in the torture on a prisoner is also a little strange. Please see my first point. Speaking the truth and making sound arguments goes a lot further than making things up or exaggerating.

Here's a link giving a little history of the system of torture used at Gitmo and its severity. Compellng reading.

Here's a link on Rumsfeld's personal involvement in the torture of a prisoner.

Here's also an article on the Bush Administration's attitude and policy toward the Geneva Conventions.

Lastly, here's an article on even the Supreme Court rejecting Bush's claim the our Military commissions could try prisoners under the authority of the Geneva Conventions.

If the above seems not definitive to you, there are plenty of articles on the net dealing with the topics we've been discussing.

I recommend Seymore Hersh's book on Abu Graib for a much more detailed account of some of the above.

Torture American Style by James McWilliams - The Texas Observer

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...urce=whitelist

U.S.: Bush Errs in Geneva Convention Rules (Human Rights Watch, 7-2-2002)

U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Here's a link giving a little history of the system of torture used at Gitmo and its severity. Compellng reading.

Here's a link on Rumsfeld's personal involvement in the torture of a prisoner.

Here's also an article on the Bush Administration's attitude and policy toward the Geneva Conventions.

Lastly, here's an article on even the Supreme Court rejecting Bush's claim the our Military commissions could try prisoners under the authority of the Geneva Conventions.

If the above seems not definitive to you, there are plenty of articles on the net dealing with the topics we've been discussing.

I recommend Seymore Hersh's book on Abu Graib for a much more detailed account of some of the above.

Torture American Style by James McWilliams - The Texas Observer

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...urce=whitelist

U.S.: Bush Errs in Geneva Convention Rules (Human Rights Watch, 7-2-2002)

U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions

None of the links you posted said that Rumpheld had personal involvement in the tortur of a prisoner. It said that he was presaent at an interagation but never said that any tortur took place while he was there. Your

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

Here's a link giving a little history of the system of torture used at Gitmo and its severity. Compellng reading.

Here's a link on Rumsfeld's personal involvement in the torture of a prisoner.

Here's also an article on the Bush Administration's attitude and policy toward the Geneva Conventions.

Lastly, here's an article on even the Supreme Court rejecting Bush's claim the our Military commissions could try prisoners under the authority of the Geneva Conventions.

If the above seems not definitive to you, there are plenty of articles on the net dealing with the topics we've been discussing.

I recommend Seymore Hersh's book on Abu Graib for a much more detailed account of some of the above.

Torture American Style by James McWilliams - The Texas Observer

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...urce=whitelist

U.S.: Bush Errs in Geneva Convention Rules (Human Rights Watch, 7-2-2002)

U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions

None of the links you posted said that Rumpheld had personal involvement in the tortur of a prisoner. It said that he was presaent at an interagation but never said that any tortur took place while he was there. Your adding in the word tortur where the article said interigation.

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

None of the links you posted said that Rumpheld had personal involvement in the tortur of a prisoner. It said that he was presaent at an interagation but never said that any tortur took place while he was there. Your adding in the word tortur where the article said interigation.

People can judge for themselves what is said being said in the links being discussed:

Rumfeld "personally" participated in the interogation of the prisoner. The interogation of the prisoner was assisted by torture. Rumfeld dictated how the prisoner was to be interrogated and what tortures would be used. When early methods pruduced too little, he personally upgraded the torture. The tortures he ordered violated the Geneva Conventions and were war crimes.

[redsrule999]

hooskin
you have some good posts
but i still think you are going out of what the topic is about
even though this is the off topic section of the forums...



bush SUCKS LIKE CRAZY